Darryl Yap puzzled over MTRCB’s requirement for his ‘Pepsi Paloma’ film


Director Darryl Yap is puzzled why the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) asked the distributor of his controversial film “Pepsi Paloma” to get legal clearance as a requirement for review. 

Yap also answered MTRCB’s statement about the movie. 

On Jan. 28, Yap posted on Facebook that “our film is now being reviewed by MTRCB.” 

DarrylYap5.jpg

Director Darryl Yap (Photo from Darryl Yap's Facebook account) 

PepsiPaloma6.jpg

Rhed Bustamante as Pepsi Paloma (Photo from Darryl Yap's Facebook account) MTRCB5a.jpg

The Movie and Television Review and Classification Board logo (Photo from MTRCB's Facebook account)

The following day, the MTRCB issued a statement about the “Pepsi Paloma” film. 

“Contrary to a false claim, the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) hereby serves notice that the Pepsi Paloma movie is currently not under review due to incomplete requirements,” the MTRCB said. 

It added that it asked the film distributor, PinoyFlix Films and Entertainment Production, to get clearance from the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court, Department of Justice, and Office of the City Prosecutor in Muntinlupa. 

“To set the record straight, the MTRCB Registration Unit could not accept the materials submitted by the representative of Pinoyflix because the Legal Affairs Division required the distributor to provide three specific requirements such as Certificate or Clearance of No Pending Criminal, Civil, or Administrative Case from the Regional Trial Court, the Department of Justice, and the Office of the City Prosecutor,” the MTRCB said. 

Yap answered the statement and wondered why the MTRCB is asking for the clearance when it did not do so for his past 16 films. 

“Ang nagpaMTRCB po ng pelikula namin ay ang distributor, tinanong ko naman kung tinanggap ang materials, umoo naman. 10am pa lang nandun na raw sila—after lunch nagpapaupdate ako, may meeting daw na sinet para sa legal, gabi na ng mabasa ko ang letter para sa mga additional requirements na hindi naman hiningi sa mga pelikula ko noon, 16 films din yun (The distributor was the one who sent our film to MTRCB, I asked if the materials were accepted, they said yes. They said they were there at 10am—after lunch I asked for an update, they said there was a meeting set for legal, it was already night when I read the letter for the additional requirements that were not asked for in my films before, that was 16 films too)," Yap posted on Facebook. 

He explained his Facebook post that the film was now being reviewed by the MTRCB. 

“Nandun naman ang pelikula ko—hindi ko alam kung napanood nila o hindi—o sige kunwari di pa nila napanood, nandun na eh. Pag pumunta ka sa MTRCB, natural papareview ka, so sabi ko nung nakapasok na sa portal ng distributor at nandun na sila sa MTRCB, nagpapareview kami o nirereview na hindi naman nandun iyon for safekeeping (My movie is there—I don't know if they watched it or not—or let's pretend they haven't watched it, it's already there. When you go to MTRCB, naturally you are there for review, so I said when they entered the distributor's portal and they were already at MTRCB, we were having it reviewed or it was being reviewed. It is not there for safekeeping),” he said. 

Yap said he had no other intention but to give an update to his followers. 

“Hindi ako aware sa hinihingi nilang additional, magpapareview lang ako ng pelikula, at bahagi naman ng pagrereview ang paghingi ng requirements…hindi ko alam ano itong pahayag na ito (I'm not aware of the additional requirements they're asking for, I'm just going to have my film reviewed, and part of reviewing is asking for requirements... I don't know what this statement is),” he said, referring to MTRCB’s statement. 

“Sa ayaw at sa gusto ng sinuman sa industriya, Pilipino ako at manggagawa ng sining, bahagi ako ng industriyang hindi pagmamay-ari ng kahit na sino. Hindi ako kalaban ng kahit na sino kahit pa ang tingin sa akin ay kaaway (Whether anyone in the industry likes or dislikes it, I'm a Filipino and an artist, I'm part of an industry that doesn't belong to anyone. I'm not anyone's enemy even if they think I'm an enemy),” he said. 

Yap said they have no more funds for the next steps if “Pepsi Paloma” is not shown in Philippine cinemas on Feb. 5. 

“Wala na kaming pondo para sa mga susunod na hakbang kung di kami maipapalabas sa Feb.5. Ganunpaman, nirerespeto ko ang MTRCB, kung hindi pa nila nireview, okay. (We have no more funds for the next steps if we are not released on Feb.5. However, I respect the MTRCB, if they haven't reviewed it yet, okay),” he said. 

But Yap took exception to MTRCB’s statement. 

“Pero wag akong gawing sinungaling sa maliit na detalye—Gumawa ako ng pelikula, bahagi yan ng industriya; ng mga karapatan at kalayaang kaakibat nito, Pelikula ko lang ang pinapasuri ko, hindi ang aking pagkatao (But don't make me a liar on a small detail—I made a movie, that's part of the industry; of the rights and freedoms that come with it, I'm only having my movie reviewed, not my personality),” he said. 

In its statement, the MTRCB said the legal requirement being asked from the distributor “is to ensure that there will be no violation of the P.D. 1986 and its Implementing Rules and Regulation (IRR). The MTRCB is composed of 30 Board Members, the Vice Chairperson and the Chairperson,” according to the MTRCB. 

It said, “All applications are reviewed by a committee comprising three board members and a second review committee, composed of five members, if warranted. Each film undergoes a rigorous and meticulous review process that evaluates every detail against the standards set by Presidential Decree No. 1986.”

The MTRCB warned that it “will not tolerate any misinformation or false narrative that seek to discredit the Agency and undermine its mandate to protect the public interest. Any attempt to deliberately mislead the public will be dealt with in accordance with the law.”

The MTRCB is headed by Chairperson Lala Sotto-Antonio, the daughter of former senator Tito Sotto. 

In a decision dated Jan. 24, the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court Branch 205 allowed Yap to release the “Pepsi Paloma” film. 

“The respondent [Yap], however, is allowed to proceed with the production and eventual release of the film ‘The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma,’” the court ruled on the petition for writ of habeas data filed by Vic Sotto against Yap. 

For Philippine cinemas, the title of the film was changed from “The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma” to “Pepsi Paloma.” 

Vic Sotto filed a P35-million cyber libel complaint against Yap with the Muntinlupa Prosecutor's Office because of the film's teaser that mentioned his name. 

MTRCB.jpg

mtrcb2.jpg

The statement of the MTRCB about the "Pepsi Paloma" film (Photos from MTRCB's Facebook page) 

MTRCB3.jpg

The letter of MTRCB to the film's distributor (Photo from Darryl Yap's Facebook account)